A NATIONAL PLAN FOE AMERICAN FORESTRY 1045 



well be contingent upon a still further degree of public control. This 

 might be the case where acceptance of aid, and consequently of con- 

 trol, is optional with the owners. It is only reasonable that the 

 public should pay for measures aimed primarily at benefiting the 

 public rather than the individual owners. The principle should be 

 maintained from the outset, however, that a private owner is neither 

 morally nor legally entitled to any reward or compensation for obey- 

 ing such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent injury to other 

 individuals or the public. 



Because of constitutional limitations upon the powers of the Federal, 

 State, and local governments, no uniform method of public control 

 can be applied to all private forests in the United States. Control 

 may be exercised under certain conditions by the Federal Government. 

 Under certain other conditions the States unquestionably have the 

 necessary authority to do what the Federal Government cannot do. 

 For these reasons a comprehensive policy would embrace three forms 

 of control: (a) Mandatory control by the Federal Government; 

 (b) mandatory control by the States and/or subdivisions of States, 

 such as counties, municipalities, or forest districts; (c) public or 

 cooperative control at the option of the owners themselves. Certain 

 combinations of the three might be desirable; for instance, the 

 Federal Government might assist the States financially and otherwise 

 to carry out control under State laws, just as is being done now in fire 

 protection. The division of responsibility for the exercise of control 

 is discussed in another section of this report. 



In cases where no legitimate form of control or voluntary action 

 under private ownership can be relied upon to maintain the forest in 

 the condition required by the public interest, provision should be 

 made for expropriation, with due compensation, by Federal, State, 

 or local authorities. This step should be taken before the forest is 

 destroyed, for rehabilitation of devastated forests will require many 

 years and is likely to be much more costly in the long run than acquisi- 

 tion of the existing forest. 



OBSTACLES TO MANDATORY REGULATION 

 ANTAGONISM OF FOREST OWNERS 



As has been shown, the right of the public to protect its own interests 

 and those of individuals by restrictions upon the use of private prop- 

 erty has sound legal basis and is freely acknowledged, in principle. 

 Nevertheless, aversion to outside control over one's own actions is 

 deeply ingrained in human nature. In part, objection to public 

 control is purely selfish. In part, however, it is due to a sincere fear 

 that control would be abused: that it would be unreasonable, would 

 not stop where it properly should stop, or would give some individuals 

 an unfair advantage over others. Opposition on the grounds that it 

 would cost the taxpayers money or that it would involve an extension 

 of bureaucracy is largely specious or due to a lack of understanding 

 as to just what public regulation might involve. 



If public control were really believed desirable or necessary, no 

 reasonable person would object to a reasonable cost or to the setting up 

 of the requisite enforcement organization. As was pointed out in the 

 sections "Is Forestry Justified?" and " Watershed and Related Forest 

 Influences/' the devastation of forests has cost the taxpayers a great 



